1 00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:13,720 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:14,040 --> 00:00:28,480 Speaker 1: Lawns was a bies or methodical, diamabolical combination. Randy Orton, 3 00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:31,840 Speaker 1: known as the Viper, is a superstar in world wrestling 4 00:00:31,960 --> 00:00:36,720 Speaker 1: entertainment who's won fourteen world heavyweight titles. The wrestler also 5 00:00:36,880 --> 00:00:40,320 Speaker 1: stars in the best selling w w E two K 6 00:00:40,640 --> 00:00:43,720 Speaker 1: video games. But it was a tattoo artist who got 7 00:00:43,760 --> 00:00:46,400 Speaker 1: the win in a legal bout over Orton's image in 8 00:00:46,440 --> 00:00:50,840 Speaker 1: the video games. Katherine Alexander sued the w w E 9 00:00:50,920 --> 00:00:54,040 Speaker 1: and the video game maker, saying the five tattoos she 10 00:00:54,240 --> 00:00:58,200 Speaker 1: inked on Orton were used without her permission. The companies 11 00:00:58,240 --> 00:01:00,760 Speaker 1: came back with a defense that it was fair use 12 00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:04,160 Speaker 1: in order to recreate Orton's image in the games. The 13 00:01:04,280 --> 00:01:07,120 Speaker 1: jury gave the win to the tattoo artist, but it 14 00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:10,400 Speaker 1: was like a split decision because the award was for 15 00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:13,399 Speaker 1: just a fraction of what she wanted. My guest is 16 00:01:13,440 --> 00:01:18,479 Speaker 1: intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner Caton Uten Rosenman Terry. 17 00:01:18,480 --> 00:01:21,360 Speaker 1: I've been hearing about a lot of copyright cases involving 18 00:01:21,440 --> 00:01:26,080 Speaker 1: tattoos recently. Is the law in this area settled? No? 19 00:01:26,800 --> 00:01:32,480 Speaker 1: The intellectual property in tattoos remains very unsettled. Demonstrating that 20 00:01:32,760 --> 00:01:35,600 Speaker 1: is two recent jury verdicts we have within the last 21 00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:40,240 Speaker 1: thirty days, one from the Southern District of Illinois captioned 22 00:01:40,319 --> 00:01:44,520 Speaker 1: Alexander versus Take two Interactive Software, and then another one 23 00:01:44,560 --> 00:01:47,200 Speaker 1: coming out of Central District, California, which is Los Angeles 24 00:01:47,680 --> 00:01:51,360 Speaker 1: captioned Brophy versus Almond Sand which apparently is the real 25 00:01:51,440 --> 00:01:54,200 Speaker 1: name of Cardi b the Queen of Rap. And both 26 00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:58,400 Speaker 1: of them came to swet different results and I think 27 00:01:58,440 --> 00:02:01,720 Speaker 1: demonstrate that there's still need form his mouth fluidity in 28 00:02:01,960 --> 00:02:06,920 Speaker 1: the intellectual property surrounding tattoos terry. So the fair use 29 00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:10,200 Speaker 1: defense didn't work for the w w E in this case, 30 00:02:10,600 --> 00:02:16,320 Speaker 1: that's correct. So this is the famous Take two video game. 31 00:02:16,880 --> 00:02:23,080 Speaker 1: W w E two K sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen comes 32 00:02:23,120 --> 00:02:26,640 Speaker 1: out every year, and starting with the w w E 33 00:02:26,760 --> 00:02:31,400 Speaker 1: two K sixteen, they were using as one of the 34 00:02:31,480 --> 00:02:35,919 Speaker 1: on screen wrestlers, Randy Orton. Randy Orton, for those of 35 00:02:35,960 --> 00:02:39,160 Speaker 1: you don't follow the w w E, is thirteen time 36 00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:43,280 Speaker 1: world Champion of the w w E and famous for 37 00:02:43,360 --> 00:02:48,120 Speaker 1: having his upper body heavily tattooed five distinct tattoos, and 38 00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:51,880 Speaker 1: of course, to replicate him in the video game, the 39 00:02:52,240 --> 00:02:56,200 Speaker 1: video game manufacturers had to show him with these tattoos. 40 00:02:56,280 --> 00:02:59,800 Speaker 1: And in advance of releasing the first game that Randy 41 00:03:00,320 --> 00:03:02,720 Speaker 1: was in, which was w W E two K sixteen 42 00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:05,680 Speaker 1: back in the fall two fifteen, they went to his 43 00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:09,000 Speaker 1: tattoo artist, a woman by the name of Catherine Alexander, 44 00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:13,680 Speaker 1: and asked for permission to display these five tattoos on 45 00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:16,800 Speaker 1: his character in the game, and offered her a license 46 00:03:16,880 --> 00:03:19,720 Speaker 1: fee and relatively spaw four hundred fifty dollars, and she 47 00:03:19,760 --> 00:03:22,440 Speaker 1: said no Wara. She said she would never license her 48 00:03:22,480 --> 00:03:25,680 Speaker 1: tattoos to anyone. A couple of years go by and 49 00:03:25,800 --> 00:03:31,639 Speaker 1: she files a lawsuit against the game manufacturer alleging copyright infringement, 50 00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:34,359 Speaker 1: and low behold, it turns out she did have copyright 51 00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:37,240 Speaker 1: registrations in each of the tattoos that she had applied 52 00:03:37,320 --> 00:03:41,360 Speaker 1: to Randy Orton's torso, and the lawsuit went to trial 53 00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:43,960 Speaker 1: back in September, and a jury found in her favor 54 00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:46,960 Speaker 1: found that there was a copyright infringement, but the jury 55 00:03:47,040 --> 00:03:53,680 Speaker 1: award was three thousand, seven fifty dollars, which seems really 56 00:03:53,880 --> 00:03:56,840 Speaker 1: low to me, especially if you consider. I don't know 57 00:03:56,840 --> 00:03:59,600 Speaker 1: if the legal work was on a contingency basis, but 58 00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:03,240 Speaker 1: the lost of trial. You're right, June, this is a 59 00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:08,320 Speaker 1: relatively trivial jury award and in my view, represents a 60 00:04:08,440 --> 00:04:12,240 Speaker 1: compromise on the part of the jury members. You often 61 00:04:12,280 --> 00:04:15,520 Speaker 1: see this in civil lawsuits, where there's some dispute within 62 00:04:15,560 --> 00:04:17,799 Speaker 1: the jury members as to whether or not there should 63 00:04:17,800 --> 00:04:20,080 Speaker 1: be a finding liability in the first place, and the 64 00:04:20,120 --> 00:04:23,400 Speaker 1: compromise usually goes something like this, well, okay, we will 65 00:04:23,440 --> 00:04:27,320 Speaker 1: agree to say that the defendant is liable, and you 66 00:04:27,600 --> 00:04:30,560 Speaker 1: will agree to say that the damages are going to 67 00:04:30,560 --> 00:04:33,119 Speaker 1: be very low. And it's a typical jury compromise when 68 00:04:33,160 --> 00:04:35,960 Speaker 1: the jury doesn't have a consensus. And I'm guessing that's 69 00:04:35,960 --> 00:04:38,520 Speaker 1: exactly what happened here, and you're right. Chances are this 70 00:04:38,720 --> 00:04:40,680 Speaker 1: was on a contingent fee basis. I don't know that 71 00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:43,520 Speaker 1: for a fact, but that's typically the way these are pursued, 72 00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:47,320 Speaker 1: and that would represent not enough money to cover the 73 00:04:47,400 --> 00:04:50,440 Speaker 1: planets attorneys sees not even come close. I happen to 74 00:04:50,520 --> 00:04:53,160 Speaker 1: dull the lead attorney for the defense here, and that 75 00:04:53,200 --> 00:04:55,600 Speaker 1: would have covered only about three hours the first time, 76 00:04:55,760 --> 00:05:01,040 Speaker 1: So it's very much I think victory for the defendant, 77 00:05:01,480 --> 00:05:04,200 Speaker 1: but they would probably have preferred not to have to 78 00:05:04,200 --> 00:05:06,880 Speaker 1: take it to a jury, to have prevailed on summary judgment, 79 00:05:06,880 --> 00:05:09,560 Speaker 1: which has happened in the past with this particular defendant. 80 00:05:09,839 --> 00:05:12,520 Speaker 1: It seems to me like the jury was thinking about, 81 00:05:12,640 --> 00:05:15,599 Speaker 1: you know, the implications because they found that none of 82 00:05:15,640 --> 00:05:20,320 Speaker 1: the profits of the game were attributable to the five tattoos. 83 00:05:20,400 --> 00:05:23,360 Speaker 1: And that makes sense to me, because no one's playing 84 00:05:23,400 --> 00:05:26,120 Speaker 1: the game to look at the tattoos. I think that's 85 00:05:26,160 --> 00:05:28,120 Speaker 1: exactly right. I think the jury probably sat there and 86 00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:31,160 Speaker 1: said to themselves, well, what would have been a reasonable 87 00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:34,680 Speaker 1: license fee here, instead of looking at what the profitability 88 00:05:34,680 --> 00:05:36,640 Speaker 1: of the game was. And it really goes to a 89 00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:39,000 Speaker 1: different question, which is whether or not this case should 90 00:05:39,000 --> 00:05:40,680 Speaker 1: ever got to the jury in the first place. The 91 00:05:40,880 --> 00:05:44,880 Speaker 1: sort of traditional game plan with respect to the defense 92 00:05:44,920 --> 00:05:48,960 Speaker 1: against copyright and tattoos has been three parts. You argue 93 00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:51,640 Speaker 1: that there's a fair use, you argue that there's an 94 00:05:51,640 --> 00:05:54,960 Speaker 1: implied license, and you argue that there's a day minimous use. 95 00:05:55,360 --> 00:05:59,760 Speaker 1: And your comment really goes towards this day minimous use issue. 96 00:06:00,040 --> 00:06:03,679 Speaker 1: You see the tattoos fleetingly. He's one character in the game. 97 00:06:03,960 --> 00:06:08,560 Speaker 1: It's clearly not contributing that much to the game users 98 00:06:08,640 --> 00:06:11,479 Speaker 1: enjoyment of the game. It's simply an identifier of one 99 00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:14,080 Speaker 1: character in the game. And in the past, not that 100 00:06:14,120 --> 00:06:16,160 Speaker 1: there are a ton of lawsuits on tattoos, but in 101 00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:18,960 Speaker 1: the past judges, particularly in the the Southern District, New York, 102 00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:22,440 Speaker 1: have thrown out the copyright and tattoo lawsuits in video 103 00:06:22,440 --> 00:06:25,560 Speaker 1: games on the grounds of the day minimus youth defense. 104 00:06:25,800 --> 00:06:28,159 Speaker 1: They have also been tattoo lawsuits thrown out on the 105 00:06:28,200 --> 00:06:31,600 Speaker 1: grounds of implied license. And after all, the person gets 106 00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:34,000 Speaker 1: a tattoo on a body part, they're going to be 107 00:06:34,160 --> 00:06:37,440 Speaker 1: them leaving the tattoo parlor and walking around in public 108 00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:40,520 Speaker 1: publicly displaying the tattoo with the people. That's usually the 109 00:06:40,560 --> 00:06:42,720 Speaker 1: reason they have a tattoo, so as to show off 110 00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:45,920 Speaker 1: their body art the folks, and the tattoo artist knows that, 111 00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:48,719 Speaker 1: and yet they're letting them walk around with this tattoo 112 00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:51,320 Speaker 1: on them. That has to be an implied license on 113 00:06:51,360 --> 00:06:54,560 Speaker 1: the part of the tattoo artist to allow this person 114 00:06:54,720 --> 00:06:58,360 Speaker 1: to publicly display the tattoo. And that's where reasoning has 115 00:06:58,520 --> 00:07:01,040 Speaker 1: cost tattoo artists in the past. Any chance that even 116 00:07:01,080 --> 00:07:03,560 Speaker 1: getting to a jury. The big surprise with this lawsuit 117 00:07:03,760 --> 00:07:05,520 Speaker 1: was that it even got to the jury in the 118 00:07:05,560 --> 00:07:08,520 Speaker 1: first place. Take to interact, and I've been successful in 119 00:07:08,600 --> 00:07:12,400 Speaker 1: the past on summary judgment with respect to NBA games. 120 00:07:12,440 --> 00:07:15,160 Speaker 1: The NBA players often have tattoos that are displayed in 121 00:07:15,200 --> 00:07:18,400 Speaker 1: these video games, and they had managed to avoid jury 122 00:07:18,400 --> 00:07:20,920 Speaker 1: trials and get some re judgment on an applied license 123 00:07:21,040 --> 00:07:23,200 Speaker 1: or fair use or the minimus us. And here the 124 00:07:23,280 --> 00:07:25,640 Speaker 1: judge in the Sun Distribute Illinois, which probably doesn't get 125 00:07:25,640 --> 00:07:28,360 Speaker 1: a lot of copyright law, said no, I'm not granting 126 00:07:28,400 --> 00:07:31,480 Speaker 1: you some rey judgment. I think there's a factual dispute. 127 00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:33,240 Speaker 1: We'll let the jury sort it out. And so that 128 00:07:33,320 --> 00:07:36,080 Speaker 1: was sort of the unusual thing here. And we'll have 129 00:07:36,200 --> 00:07:39,000 Speaker 1: to see what happens going forward, whether more and more 130 00:07:39,040 --> 00:07:48,840 Speaker 1: of these tattoo cases get to a jury. Money let's 131 00:07:48,840 --> 00:07:52,600 Speaker 1: go now from wrestlers to rappers. Cardibi was sued not 132 00:07:52,800 --> 00:07:55,720 Speaker 1: over her tats, but over the tattoo on the cover 133 00:07:55,800 --> 00:07:59,760 Speaker 1: of her mix tape. The full back tattoos of Kevin 134 00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:04,600 Speaker 1: Trophy showing a tiger fighting a snake, were photoshopped onto 135 00:08:04,680 --> 00:08:08,520 Speaker 1: the back of the model in this sexually explicit cover 136 00:08:08,880 --> 00:08:13,679 Speaker 1: and Brophy sued, saying his publicity and privacy rights were violated. 137 00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:17,160 Speaker 1: So this is a different twist. Sure, this is a 138 00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:20,920 Speaker 1: sort of a different approach by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, 139 00:08:21,280 --> 00:08:25,160 Speaker 1: Mr Brophy was not the tattoo artist, but he had 140 00:08:25,200 --> 00:08:29,240 Speaker 1: obtained over a period time, a very complex tattoo on 141 00:08:29,320 --> 00:08:33,240 Speaker 1: his back of a tiger fighting a snake, actually quite artistic. 142 00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:37,200 Speaker 1: Flash forward a couple of years and Cardie B was 143 00:08:37,480 --> 00:08:40,520 Speaker 1: about to release her breakthrough album This Is in two 144 00:08:40,559 --> 00:08:43,800 Speaker 1: thousand six FT, the album that really made her into 145 00:08:43,840 --> 00:08:47,040 Speaker 1: what she is now, and the album cover was, as 146 00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:51,040 Speaker 1: you described, very racy. It involved a sexual act being 147 00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:54,160 Speaker 1: performed on her by a mail whose back was to 148 00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:59,960 Speaker 1: the camera. And apparently when they looked at the photo 149 00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:02,839 Speaker 1: grafts of this photo session for the album cover, Cardi 150 00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:06,120 Speaker 1: B did not like the back of the model or 151 00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:09,640 Speaker 1: social test by Trout, and so they photo shopped in 152 00:09:10,200 --> 00:09:14,280 Speaker 1: this tattoo of Mr Brophy which they had found somewhere online. 153 00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:17,960 Speaker 1: And there's no dispute that they found his tattoo online 154 00:09:18,000 --> 00:09:20,920 Speaker 1: and photoshopped it onto the back of the actual model 155 00:09:21,040 --> 00:09:24,160 Speaker 1: in this cover. So they used his tattoo. Mr Brophy 156 00:09:24,520 --> 00:09:28,760 Speaker 1: claims that he was humiliated. He was mortified that he 157 00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:34,240 Speaker 1: was embarrassed, psychologically traumatized by this cover of a sexual 158 00:09:34,360 --> 00:09:38,920 Speaker 1: act being out there in the marketplace, and afraid that people, 159 00:09:38,960 --> 00:09:41,760 Speaker 1: including his kids and friends would think this was him 160 00:09:41,840 --> 00:09:44,240 Speaker 1: in real life doing this. And so he brought a 161 00:09:44,280 --> 00:09:49,040 Speaker 1: lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles alleging that the 162 00:09:49,200 --> 00:09:53,520 Speaker 1: use of his tattoo in this album cover was either 163 00:09:53,559 --> 00:09:57,240 Speaker 1: a misappropriation of his likeness or an invasion of privacy 164 00:09:57,280 --> 00:09:59,760 Speaker 1: on a sort of false life theory. And that's what 165 00:10:00,280 --> 00:10:04,640 Speaker 1: this case is different from the case involving the Randy 166 00:10:04,760 --> 00:10:07,439 Speaker 1: Orton tattoo in that there was no copyright allegation here. 167 00:10:07,520 --> 00:10:11,120 Speaker 1: June Cardi B had several defenses. She said on the stand, 168 00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:13,840 Speaker 1: it's not him to me, it doesn't look like his 169 00:10:13,920 --> 00:10:17,280 Speaker 1: back at all. The tattoo was modified and the jury 170 00:10:17,320 --> 00:10:20,280 Speaker 1: sided with her. I'm wondering how much her celebrity had 171 00:10:20,320 --> 00:10:23,040 Speaker 1: to do with the verdict. Well, you would certainly think so. 172 00:10:23,240 --> 00:10:26,600 Speaker 1: My past experience in celebrity cases is that there is 173 00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:30,679 Speaker 1: an influence on the jury. It's not always a positive 174 00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:33,800 Speaker 1: influence the jury. And there's certain celebrities I think Cardi 175 00:10:33,840 --> 00:10:36,760 Speaker 1: B is one of them. Taylor Swift, who if they're 176 00:10:36,920 --> 00:10:39,040 Speaker 1: involved in the case. President the courtroom, I think the 177 00:10:39,120 --> 00:10:42,800 Speaker 1: jury does sort of slant toward them, so that may 178 00:10:42,840 --> 00:10:46,439 Speaker 1: have happened here. Cardie b is very popular, like kids, 179 00:10:46,440 --> 00:10:48,440 Speaker 1: referred to as the Queen of Wrap, and so I 180 00:10:48,440 --> 00:10:50,720 Speaker 1: think that there's no way you can't help but do that. 181 00:10:51,080 --> 00:10:53,080 Speaker 1: The other thing that happened during the trial is that 182 00:10:53,160 --> 00:10:56,120 Speaker 1: the attorney for the plaintiff for Mr. Brophy, got into 183 00:10:56,160 --> 00:10:58,760 Speaker 1: it with her, and the attorney pushed the line a bit, 184 00:10:58,960 --> 00:11:02,480 Speaker 1: and she pushed back and took great umbrage understand that 185 00:11:02,800 --> 00:11:08,080 Speaker 1: anyone would claim that somehow their tattoo was responsible for 186 00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:12,080 Speaker 1: the enormous success of this album and her music, and indeed, 187 00:11:12,080 --> 00:11:14,040 Speaker 1: she went so far as to paint this is yet 188 00:11:14,040 --> 00:11:18,280 Speaker 1: another case of a patriarchal society trying to deny that 189 00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:22,880 Speaker 1: a woman was able to create something successful in the marketplace. 190 00:11:23,120 --> 00:11:26,760 Speaker 1: And I think that as much as her public celebrity, 191 00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:30,559 Speaker 1: was very influential with the jury here. So considering all 192 00:11:30,600 --> 00:11:34,680 Speaker 1: these verdicts, who has the leverage and negotiations Because the 193 00:11:34,760 --> 00:11:39,560 Speaker 1: tattoo artist won the Randy Orton case, but the award was, 194 00:11:39,760 --> 00:11:43,640 Speaker 1: as we've discussed, paltry the issue here, June is that 195 00:11:43,679 --> 00:11:47,920 Speaker 1: the law is not sufficiently mature, not developed at the 196 00:11:47,960 --> 00:11:52,439 Speaker 1: appellate level so that litigants know what their rights are 197 00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:55,840 Speaker 1: with some certainty. I think at some point the circuit 198 00:11:55,880 --> 00:11:59,040 Speaker 1: course will say that there is as a matter of 199 00:11:59,120 --> 00:12:02,920 Speaker 1: law and implied the license here to publicly display the copyrights, 200 00:12:02,960 --> 00:12:06,360 Speaker 1: and or a demonimous use defense. The fair use defense 201 00:12:06,480 --> 00:12:08,439 Speaker 1: is hard to make out in all these cases. I 202 00:12:08,440 --> 00:12:10,680 Speaker 1: don't think that'll be successful. But if that's the way 203 00:12:10,720 --> 00:12:13,400 Speaker 1: we come down, that the law is a little bit 204 00:12:13,440 --> 00:12:16,520 Speaker 1: on the side of the user as opposed to the 205 00:12:16,520 --> 00:12:20,080 Speaker 1: tattoo artist or in the Brophy case, stuff tattoo, where 206 00:12:20,520 --> 00:12:24,560 Speaker 1: I think the leverage is really against the tattoo artist. 207 00:12:24,800 --> 00:12:27,320 Speaker 1: And we certainly see with this one verdict out of 208 00:12:27,400 --> 00:12:30,160 Speaker 1: the Southern District Illinois that juries just don't think this 209 00:12:30,240 --> 00:12:33,160 Speaker 1: is worth much, and that will make it a lot 210 00:12:33,480 --> 00:12:37,080 Speaker 1: easier for the litigants to settle these cases, probably on 211 00:12:37,080 --> 00:12:39,560 Speaker 1: the low side. Now, there's another side to this equation, 212 00:12:39,840 --> 00:12:43,720 Speaker 1: which is when the end user, either CARDI B using 213 00:12:43,760 --> 00:12:47,679 Speaker 1: this photo for album or video game manufacturer using it 214 00:12:47,760 --> 00:12:50,439 Speaker 1: in a video game, whether they really want to incur 215 00:12:50,679 --> 00:12:55,000 Speaker 1: these substantial legal fees that are involved, because even though 216 00:12:55,320 --> 00:12:58,160 Speaker 1: A two Interactive was only hit by the jury Verdi 217 00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:01,640 Speaker 1: for fifty dollars, they spent at least a million dollars, 218 00:13:01,640 --> 00:13:04,080 Speaker 1: probably more on the legal fees, none of which come 219 00:13:04,120 --> 00:13:06,480 Speaker 1: back to them. Same in the Cardi B case, probably 220 00:13:06,480 --> 00:13:09,280 Speaker 1: spent taking this case to trial a million dollars. And 221 00:13:09,440 --> 00:13:11,720 Speaker 1: it seems to me it would make more sense for 222 00:13:11,800 --> 00:13:15,920 Speaker 1: the end user of these tattoos in secondary creative works 223 00:13:16,000 --> 00:13:19,040 Speaker 1: to go to whoever owns the intellectual property rights in 224 00:13:19,040 --> 00:13:22,600 Speaker 1: the tattoo and negotiate something up front, and four fifty dollars, 225 00:13:22,600 --> 00:13:24,560 Speaker 1: as we saw in the Alexander case, is not going 226 00:13:24,600 --> 00:13:26,560 Speaker 1: to get it done, and to offer them, you know, 227 00:13:26,640 --> 00:13:29,800 Speaker 1: several thousands of dollars, which is certainly a lot less 228 00:13:29,880 --> 00:13:33,720 Speaker 1: than the million dollars attorneys fees, and also diminishes risk, 229 00:13:33,920 --> 00:13:36,560 Speaker 1: which is something that big companies are always looking for. 230 00:13:37,120 --> 00:13:42,080 Speaker 1: Practically speaking, Let's say one of these companies take too Interactive, 231 00:13:42,360 --> 00:13:45,120 Speaker 1: can't come to an agreement with the tattoo artist. Isn't 232 00:13:45,160 --> 00:13:48,719 Speaker 1: it pretty easy for them to obscure the tattoos or 233 00:13:48,920 --> 00:13:52,160 Speaker 1: change the tattoos enough in the video game that they 234 00:13:52,280 --> 00:13:56,160 Speaker 1: won't be responsible. Well, that's where this minimust youth defense 235 00:13:56,360 --> 00:13:59,000 Speaker 1: comes in and has been successful in the past. That 236 00:13:59,520 --> 00:14:02,880 Speaker 1: the play here is in motion, you just get a 237 00:14:03,000 --> 00:14:06,199 Speaker 1: glimpse of that tattoo. So the majority of the game 238 00:14:06,400 --> 00:14:09,880 Speaker 1: does not involve looking at tattoos or seeing the tattoos, 239 00:14:09,920 --> 00:14:14,040 Speaker 1: and so it seems like it should be covered by 240 00:14:14,040 --> 00:14:17,079 Speaker 1: the day men use defense. The problem with the case 241 00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:19,800 Speaker 1: in the Southern District Illinois is that the Seventh Circuit 242 00:14:19,920 --> 00:14:23,680 Speaker 1: has never dealt with the issue of demonimous use. Illinois 243 00:14:23,720 --> 00:14:25,480 Speaker 1: is part of the Seventh Circuit, which is based in 244 00:14:25,600 --> 00:14:29,440 Speaker 1: Chicago in the states surrounding Illinois, and they just simply 245 00:14:29,480 --> 00:14:32,080 Speaker 1: haven't dealt with it, whereas Second Circuit in the Ninth 246 00:14:32,160 --> 00:14:35,440 Speaker 1: Circuit have and have established pretty strong to unanimous use defenses. 247 00:14:35,840 --> 00:14:39,720 Speaker 1: And so the district court judge here said, well, they've 248 00:14:39,800 --> 00:14:42,240 Speaker 1: never decided it, so I'll just let the jury consider 249 00:14:42,240 --> 00:14:46,360 Speaker 1: whether the facts established it or not. Arguably wrong, but 250 00:14:47,000 --> 00:14:50,640 Speaker 1: that's the way it went um. So again, going forward, 251 00:14:50,680 --> 00:14:54,440 Speaker 1: it just seems like an easy thing for game manufacturer 252 00:14:55,040 --> 00:14:58,160 Speaker 1: to go to the tattoo artist or the tattoo where 253 00:14:58,280 --> 00:15:01,480 Speaker 1: and and buy out the rights for a few thousand dollars. 254 00:15:01,520 --> 00:15:04,760 Speaker 1: I mean, going forward, if there are more of these cases. 255 00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:08,960 Speaker 1: If the game companies don't learn their lesson, do you 256 00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:12,040 Speaker 1: think that this will be an area that's more defined 257 00:15:12,080 --> 00:15:15,920 Speaker 1: than legally. The curious thing here, June, is that we've 258 00:15:16,040 --> 00:15:18,200 Speaker 1: not had any of these court cases go up on 259 00:15:18,320 --> 00:15:22,920 Speaker 1: appeal to circuit courts, so we just don't have appellate law, 260 00:15:23,440 --> 00:15:26,320 Speaker 1: and tattoos are everywhere. It's different than music. Music cases 261 00:15:26,360 --> 00:15:30,400 Speaker 1: are where uh New York Second Circuit, uh, Nashville, Detroit 262 00:15:30,520 --> 00:15:33,960 Speaker 1: six Circuit, Los Angeles Ninth Circuit. So you have well 263 00:15:34,000 --> 00:15:37,680 Speaker 1: developed law with respect of music cases. Art cases you 264 00:15:37,760 --> 00:15:41,240 Speaker 1: see heavily in the Second Circuit New York. Movies, television 265 00:15:41,240 --> 00:15:44,280 Speaker 1: cases you see heavily in on the West Coast Ninth Circuit. 266 00:15:44,480 --> 00:15:47,000 Speaker 1: Tattoos are everywhere. I mean tell them just to Illinois. 267 00:15:47,040 --> 00:15:50,640 Speaker 1: Hown't seen a copyright case there and forever, and so 268 00:15:51,080 --> 00:15:53,200 Speaker 1: you just can't be sure where the next one is 269 00:15:53,240 --> 00:15:55,840 Speaker 1: going to come. We do know that there's going to 270 00:15:55,880 --> 00:15:59,080 Speaker 1: be a trial in one of these NBA video game 271 00:15:59,120 --> 00:16:03,040 Speaker 1: cases in a Hio in the spring of assuming it 272 00:16:03,040 --> 00:16:05,920 Speaker 1: doesn't get settled or pushed off, and again that's yet 273 00:16:06,000 --> 00:16:08,920 Speaker 1: another court that gets to decide these. So we're just 274 00:16:09,000 --> 00:16:13,920 Speaker 1: not seeing them brought consistently in one place where one 275 00:16:13,960 --> 00:16:16,200 Speaker 1: of them gets up to the circuit court, the circuit 276 00:16:16,200 --> 00:16:19,880 Speaker 1: court renders some law, clarifies the situation, and then we 277 00:16:19,920 --> 00:16:22,680 Speaker 1: move forward with some certainty. It's just very odd that 278 00:16:22,800 --> 00:16:26,360 Speaker 1: the cases have been very diffused, just brought everywhere. And 279 00:16:26,400 --> 00:16:29,640 Speaker 1: we'll see what happens in this upcoming case where a 280 00:16:29,680 --> 00:16:34,440 Speaker 1: tattoo artist who inked NBA players including Lebron James and 281 00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:38,200 Speaker 1: Tristan Thompson, is suing the maker of the video game 282 00:16:38,440 --> 00:16:42,280 Speaker 1: NBA two K. Thanks so much for your insights as always, Terry. 283 00:16:42,400 --> 00:16:46,800 Speaker 1: That's intellectual property litigator Terence Ross of Captain Yuchen Rosenman. 284 00:16:48,280 --> 00:16:51,920 Speaker 1: When a star athlete and a supermodel get divorced, it's 285 00:16:51,960 --> 00:16:55,440 Speaker 1: sure to make headlines. Although Tom Brady and Gazelle Bunch 286 00:16:55,520 --> 00:16:58,760 Speaker 1: and have tried to quell any media frenzy by coming 287 00:16:58,800 --> 00:17:03,360 Speaker 1: to a quick settlement and issuing corresponding statements on Instagram 288 00:17:03,440 --> 00:17:07,280 Speaker 1: about their divorce after thirteen years of marriage and two children, 289 00:17:07,720 --> 00:17:11,399 Speaker 1: and Brady addressed the divorce on his podcast. Obviously, the 290 00:17:11,400 --> 00:17:14,679 Speaker 1: good news is things that it's a very amicable situation, 291 00:17:14,760 --> 00:17:17,280 Speaker 1: and I'm really focused on two things and take care 292 00:17:17,320 --> 00:17:21,880 Speaker 1: of my family and certainly my children, and secondly doing 293 00:17:21,920 --> 00:17:24,280 Speaker 1: the best job I can to win football games. So 294 00:17:24,800 --> 00:17:28,040 Speaker 1: that's what professionals do. You focus at work when it's 295 00:17:28,040 --> 00:17:30,040 Speaker 1: time to work, and when you come home, you focus 296 00:17:30,040 --> 00:17:33,119 Speaker 1: on the priorities that are at home, and all you 297 00:17:33,160 --> 00:17:35,440 Speaker 1: can do is the best you could do. And that's 298 00:17:35,480 --> 00:17:38,080 Speaker 1: what I'll just continue to do, is as long as 299 00:17:38,119 --> 00:17:40,720 Speaker 1: I'm working, as long as I'm being a dad. Joining 300 00:17:40,760 --> 00:17:44,160 Speaker 1: me is divorce attorney Christopher Melcher, a partner Walter Melcher, 301 00:17:44,200 --> 00:17:48,439 Speaker 1: and Yodah. Their statements tracked each other, bunching in an 302 00:17:48,480 --> 00:17:51,560 Speaker 1: Instagram story set with much gratitude for our time together, 303 00:17:51,680 --> 00:17:55,280 Speaker 1: Tom and I have amicably finalized our divorce, Brady said, 304 00:17:55,320 --> 00:17:58,639 Speaker 1: we arrived at this decision amicably and with gratitude for 305 00:17:58,640 --> 00:18:01,000 Speaker 1: the time we spent together there and they both talked 306 00:18:01,000 --> 00:18:04,600 Speaker 1: about their children, asked the public to respect their privacy. 307 00:18:04,760 --> 00:18:10,000 Speaker 1: Does that indicate that this was a well worked out divorce? Absolutely. 308 00:18:10,280 --> 00:18:13,639 Speaker 1: The statements on social media were released by each of 309 00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:17,000 Speaker 1: them and around the same time. It wasn't a joint statement, 310 00:18:17,080 --> 00:18:21,720 Speaker 1: but the statements were very similar and indicate that they 311 00:18:21,760 --> 00:18:26,560 Speaker 1: have resolved things amicably and that they're going forward, just 312 00:18:26,720 --> 00:18:29,560 Speaker 1: really as co parents and trying to focus on their 313 00:18:29,680 --> 00:18:34,080 Speaker 1: kids and let this kind of get behind them. The 314 00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:38,320 Speaker 1: petition for dissolution of marriage was just three pages. So 315 00:18:38,400 --> 00:18:41,120 Speaker 1: somewhere else, I take it is the legal document about 316 00:18:41,160 --> 00:18:44,479 Speaker 1: how they're splitting things up. Yeah, so they have to 317 00:18:44,520 --> 00:18:48,000 Speaker 1: file a case in public court to get a divorce, 318 00:18:48,440 --> 00:18:52,040 Speaker 1: and so that started, which zel filing a petition for dissolution, 319 00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:55,359 Speaker 1: and then the next step will be to ask the 320 00:18:55,440 --> 00:18:59,199 Speaker 1: court jointly to enter a judgment of divorce, and that 321 00:18:59,200 --> 00:19:03,399 Speaker 1: would return them to status a single people and most 322 00:19:03,880 --> 00:19:07,240 Speaker 1: spouses will then also tell the court what the terms 323 00:19:07,240 --> 00:19:10,159 Speaker 1: of their settlement are with regard to property and kids 324 00:19:10,160 --> 00:19:13,399 Speaker 1: and support. Here, my guess is they will keep that 325 00:19:13,560 --> 00:19:19,080 Speaker 1: confidential and um not put that in the judgment, so 326 00:19:19,400 --> 00:19:21,760 Speaker 1: we don't get to see that. Uh, and there will 327 00:19:21,800 --> 00:19:23,520 Speaker 1: be no orders on it either. It would just be 328 00:19:23,560 --> 00:19:27,399 Speaker 1: a confidential settlement agreement between the two of them, and 329 00:19:27,840 --> 00:19:30,439 Speaker 1: no one would put it into a court file unless 330 00:19:30,480 --> 00:19:33,520 Speaker 1: someone broke the agreement and needed to be enforced. That's 331 00:19:33,560 --> 00:19:37,480 Speaker 1: typically how these deals are run. So it seems incredibly quick, 332 00:19:37,600 --> 00:19:42,640 Speaker 1: but apparently they were negotiating about it and hired lawyers 333 00:19:42,680 --> 00:19:45,520 Speaker 1: at the beginning of October, so it's taken about a 334 00:19:45,560 --> 00:19:49,120 Speaker 1: month for them to resolve this. It could have taken 335 00:19:49,160 --> 00:19:54,160 Speaker 1: even longer than that. The story started to break about 336 00:19:54,200 --> 00:19:59,480 Speaker 1: the couple having problems, but they may have been experiencing 337 00:19:59,520 --> 00:20:03,400 Speaker 1: these problem is much earlier and working on a divorce 338 00:20:03,440 --> 00:20:06,960 Speaker 1: settlement for quite some time. And for me doing these 339 00:20:07,000 --> 00:20:11,680 Speaker 1: type of cases, that's the ideal situation is to work 340 00:20:11,760 --> 00:20:15,359 Speaker 1: all the details out before the public knows of the split, 341 00:20:15,880 --> 00:20:19,520 Speaker 1: and then um we then announced or the couple announces 342 00:20:19,560 --> 00:20:22,440 Speaker 1: that they're splitting around the same time as we're announcing 343 00:20:22,480 --> 00:20:26,439 Speaker 1: the settlement. So it's possible that they were able to 344 00:20:26,520 --> 00:20:29,439 Speaker 1: arrange all these details in a month, but my my 345 00:20:29,600 --> 00:20:33,000 Speaker 1: suspicion is it would have taken much longer than that 346 00:20:33,119 --> 00:20:36,119 Speaker 1: because there's a lot of complexity when you have that 347 00:20:36,240 --> 00:20:39,159 Speaker 1: much wealth, and also complexity around how they're going to 348 00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:42,200 Speaker 1: share time with their kids in a way that's acceptable 349 00:20:42,400 --> 00:20:45,080 Speaker 1: and best for the children. So to think that they 350 00:20:45,080 --> 00:20:48,240 Speaker 1: did all that in a month is unlikely. One of 351 00:20:48,240 --> 00:20:51,480 Speaker 1: the most controversial parts of a divorce is often who'll 352 00:20:51,520 --> 00:20:54,359 Speaker 1: get custody of the children. Well, they both said they 353 00:20:54,400 --> 00:20:59,600 Speaker 1: agreed to join custody, and she said we'll continue co parenting. 354 00:21:00,200 --> 00:21:03,000 Speaker 1: Do you think it's that's all it says joint custody 355 00:21:03,080 --> 00:21:05,879 Speaker 1: or there is a lot more about times and places, 356 00:21:05,960 --> 00:21:10,480 Speaker 1: etcetera in the final agreement. So joint custody is a 357 00:21:10,600 --> 00:21:13,760 Speaker 1: very broad term which could mean a lot of different things. 358 00:21:13,560 --> 00:21:17,760 Speaker 1: It certainly does not always mean equal time, and in 359 00:21:17,880 --> 00:21:21,560 Speaker 1: most cases we parents don't equally share time with their children. 360 00:21:21,800 --> 00:21:25,120 Speaker 1: It's it's gonna be very difficult to do that when 361 00:21:25,800 --> 00:21:28,840 Speaker 1: one or both parents are working a lot, and children 362 00:21:28,880 --> 00:21:31,520 Speaker 1: also sometimes want to have a home base and they 363 00:21:31,600 --> 00:21:34,560 Speaker 1: just want to have a place where they're regularly staying, 364 00:21:34,680 --> 00:21:37,679 Speaker 1: and then they just spend substantial time with the other parents. 365 00:21:38,480 --> 00:21:42,680 Speaker 1: So here Tom is working a lot and that takes 366 00:21:42,760 --> 00:21:48,800 Speaker 1: him away from Florida often, so you know, he couldn't 367 00:21:49,000 --> 00:21:53,280 Speaker 1: have the hands on parenting at least while he's engaged 368 00:21:53,320 --> 00:21:57,480 Speaker 1: in that work schedule that a parent who works locally 369 00:21:57,560 --> 00:21:59,720 Speaker 1: could have. So there's going to have to be some 370 00:21:59,800 --> 00:22:02,439 Speaker 1: give and take between the couple, And it sounds like 371 00:22:02,560 --> 00:22:06,920 Speaker 1: they've achieved or worked out out so that um when 372 00:22:07,800 --> 00:22:11,000 Speaker 1: Tom is away, obviously the kids would be with Gazelle, 373 00:22:11,160 --> 00:22:14,639 Speaker 1: but then hopefully when Tom is in town that he 374 00:22:14,680 --> 00:22:17,040 Speaker 1: would have that time to kind of offset it to 375 00:22:17,160 --> 00:22:21,360 Speaker 1: keep the relationship going. And it might surprise some that 376 00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:25,240 Speaker 1: Buncheon is worth almost twice as much reportedly according to 377 00:22:25,320 --> 00:22:30,359 Speaker 1: Celebrity net Worth as Brady is. What would a prenup cover? Generally, 378 00:22:30,920 --> 00:22:34,359 Speaker 1: I would anticipate that this couple had a premarital agreement 379 00:22:34,480 --> 00:22:38,760 Speaker 1: because both of them brought significant wealth into the marriage, 380 00:22:39,359 --> 00:22:43,240 Speaker 1: and most of these prenups for a couple like this 381 00:22:43,760 --> 00:22:47,160 Speaker 1: would say that they're each going to keep their own 382 00:22:47,240 --> 00:22:51,879 Speaker 1: premarital property, and any property that either of them acquires 383 00:22:51,960 --> 00:22:55,840 Speaker 1: during marriage would be their own, and there might not 384 00:22:55,880 --> 00:23:01,080 Speaker 1: be any shared property unless they decide to take title 385 00:23:01,200 --> 00:23:04,840 Speaker 1: to let's stay at home family residents jointly, than they 386 00:23:04,840 --> 00:23:08,440 Speaker 1: would make that their joint property. But many times these 387 00:23:08,760 --> 00:23:14,040 Speaker 1: marriages between two celebs will involve a complete separate estate 388 00:23:14,119 --> 00:23:17,320 Speaker 1: for each one of them, and I can't imagine that 389 00:23:17,359 --> 00:23:21,040 Speaker 1: there would be any spousal supporter alimony here. There could 390 00:23:21,040 --> 00:23:23,800 Speaker 1: be child support, but again it you know, at these 391 00:23:23,880 --> 00:23:28,160 Speaker 1: levels of wealth, nobody needs any money, and in a way, 392 00:23:28,200 --> 00:23:30,800 Speaker 1: that makes it a lot easier to solve these cases 393 00:23:30,840 --> 00:23:35,840 Speaker 1: because the money is not scarce and we're low asset cases, 394 00:23:35,880 --> 00:23:39,440 Speaker 1: which most families. You know, it's defined is not having 395 00:23:39,560 --> 00:23:42,399 Speaker 1: a lot of assets to split maybe a house and 396 00:23:42,440 --> 00:23:45,560 Speaker 1: a retirement account. It's very difficult. Those two me are 397 00:23:45,600 --> 00:23:48,520 Speaker 1: the scariest cases because you know, there's not going to 398 00:23:48,600 --> 00:23:51,159 Speaker 1: be enough money to go around in that family to 399 00:23:51,880 --> 00:23:55,120 Speaker 1: maintain the standard of living that they had together. Because 400 00:23:55,160 --> 00:23:57,720 Speaker 1: they're now living in two households on the same amount 401 00:23:57,720 --> 00:24:00,440 Speaker 1: of money. Something's got to give, and it's going to 402 00:24:00,520 --> 00:24:05,040 Speaker 1: be lifestyle. This couple has none of those concerns, So 403 00:24:05,240 --> 00:24:08,800 Speaker 1: you think that there might actually not even be uh 404 00:24:09,040 --> 00:24:13,040 Speaker 1: provision for child support, that's right. I can't imagine that 405 00:24:13,040 --> 00:24:16,600 Speaker 1: there would be any child support paid here. I mean 406 00:24:16,640 --> 00:24:19,439 Speaker 1: the law might, you know, technically provide for it, as 407 00:24:19,480 --> 00:24:23,159 Speaker 1: somebody asked. But usually in these cases, they're just going 408 00:24:23,200 --> 00:24:26,400 Speaker 1: to go their separate ways. They may have kept all 409 00:24:26,480 --> 00:24:30,480 Speaker 1: of their assets and income separate to begin with, so 410 00:24:30,520 --> 00:24:33,119 Speaker 1: there may not have been a lot of mixing, and 411 00:24:33,760 --> 00:24:36,560 Speaker 1: there's really no need for any support. I mean, both 412 00:24:36,640 --> 00:24:40,480 Speaker 1: of these spouses, you know, make tremendous amounts of money, 413 00:24:40,560 --> 00:24:44,439 Speaker 1: so there's there's no need for reallocating income between the 414 00:24:44,480 --> 00:24:47,560 Speaker 1: two of them for support purposes. I found this interesting. 415 00:24:47,720 --> 00:24:51,440 Speaker 1: They have four different houses that they purchased during their marriage. 416 00:24:51,520 --> 00:24:56,320 Speaker 1: So it's possible that even those weren't purchased jointly, that 417 00:24:56,359 --> 00:24:59,120 Speaker 1: they might be in one one's name or the other 418 00:24:59,160 --> 00:25:01,800 Speaker 1: and not have to be split. I didn't check the 419 00:25:01,840 --> 00:25:05,399 Speaker 1: title of these things, and many times these are held 420 00:25:05,480 --> 00:25:08,919 Speaker 1: not even in their own names. They're held usually in 421 00:25:08,960 --> 00:25:12,840 Speaker 1: an entity that's created by the couple, And so it 422 00:25:12,880 --> 00:25:16,640 Speaker 1: makes it very difficult sometimes to see who really owns 423 00:25:16,720 --> 00:25:20,800 Speaker 1: this property. But we will, you know, see a couple 424 00:25:21,040 --> 00:25:25,360 Speaker 1: purchase a home together, and even though they have separate estates, 425 00:25:25,840 --> 00:25:29,159 Speaker 1: symbolically they kind of want to feel like this is 426 00:25:29,359 --> 00:25:33,600 Speaker 1: our home and not you know, their spouses home. So really, 427 00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:37,399 Speaker 1: I guess for symbolic reasons, they will oftentimes purchase a 428 00:25:37,480 --> 00:25:40,720 Speaker 1: home together. But that's about it. And and so there 429 00:25:40,720 --> 00:25:44,080 Speaker 1: may not be any other shared property here after the 430 00:25:44,240 --> 00:25:48,760 Speaker 1: divorce the property is split, and money issues we're assuming 431 00:25:48,800 --> 00:25:51,960 Speaker 1: there are none. But even though they say that they're 432 00:25:52,000 --> 00:25:55,679 Speaker 1: going to continue to co parent Mike, problems arise in 433 00:25:55,680 --> 00:26:00,440 Speaker 1: the future about the custody arrangements anyway, or about out 434 00:26:00,440 --> 00:26:04,000 Speaker 1: you know, decisions about the children's lives, where they're going 435 00:26:04,080 --> 00:26:07,000 Speaker 1: to go to school, for example, things like that, Well, 436 00:26:07,040 --> 00:26:10,440 Speaker 1: in In most divorces, there's going to be some lingering 437 00:26:10,480 --> 00:26:15,520 Speaker 1: issues involving kids, and that can be disputes over changes 438 00:26:15,600 --> 00:26:19,600 Speaker 1: of time spent with the children or maybe even a 439 00:26:19,680 --> 00:26:24,320 Speaker 1: relocation out of state, or issues of child support. So 440 00:26:24,440 --> 00:26:28,520 Speaker 1: that's a common feature post judgment of a divorce case. 441 00:26:28,920 --> 00:26:33,240 Speaker 1: It's unlikely to happen here because of the level of 442 00:26:33,280 --> 00:26:36,639 Speaker 1: attention that this couple had on their marriage. It was 443 00:26:36,880 --> 00:26:39,919 Speaker 1: even though they're both famous, it was really surprising to 444 00:26:40,000 --> 00:26:43,800 Speaker 1: me that there was this much media attention on their split. 445 00:26:44,600 --> 00:26:46,280 Speaker 1: And that's one of the reasons why I think that 446 00:26:46,359 --> 00:26:50,280 Speaker 1: they settled so quickly, because it was just embarrassing and 447 00:26:50,440 --> 00:26:53,440 Speaker 1: kind of harmful probably to them to have this much attention. 448 00:26:54,200 --> 00:26:58,359 Speaker 1: So any dispute that they would have going forward would 449 00:26:58,359 --> 00:27:02,520 Speaker 1: have to be so serious is to justify airing that 450 00:27:02,600 --> 00:27:06,440 Speaker 1: out in a public corp proceeding. So I got to 451 00:27:06,520 --> 00:27:11,280 Speaker 1: imagine that this scrutiny that's inherent here would keep the 452 00:27:11,400 --> 00:27:14,840 Speaker 1: parents on their best behavior, would keep them in a 453 00:27:14,920 --> 00:27:18,919 Speaker 1: settlement minded mode, not only to protect their own brand 454 00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:22,840 Speaker 1: or reputation, but to protect their kids because their children 455 00:27:22,920 --> 00:27:26,200 Speaker 1: will see all of this and social media and reporting, 456 00:27:26,359 --> 00:27:30,720 Speaker 1: and it's really embarrassing to those kids, and the dispute 457 00:27:30,760 --> 00:27:35,280 Speaker 1: would have to warrant putting those kids and themselves through 458 00:27:35,400 --> 00:27:38,639 Speaker 1: all of that anguish, and I can't really imagine what 459 00:27:38,720 --> 00:27:41,520 Speaker 1: that would be. But we have seen, like with Brad 460 00:27:41,520 --> 00:27:45,000 Speaker 1: Pitt and Angelina and Jolie, having sixtures of litigation and 461 00:27:45,080 --> 00:27:48,040 Speaker 1: dragging all that through, and it's just really I question 462 00:27:48,160 --> 00:27:50,960 Speaker 1: how any of that could be worth it. I'm surprised 463 00:27:51,040 --> 00:27:53,920 Speaker 1: that you're surprised that this divorce got so much attention 464 00:27:54,320 --> 00:27:57,320 Speaker 1: because he's such a big football star, she's a supermodel. 465 00:27:57,960 --> 00:28:01,560 Speaker 1: It seems made for the tabloids to well it is, 466 00:28:01,720 --> 00:28:05,959 Speaker 1: and you know, they're they're a young, beautiful, successful couple. 467 00:28:06,560 --> 00:28:10,280 Speaker 1: But you know, hey, this is common. You know every 468 00:28:10,280 --> 00:28:14,399 Speaker 1: everyday issues here that people get married and it doesn't 469 00:28:14,400 --> 00:28:16,880 Speaker 1: work out and they get divorced and they move forward. 470 00:28:17,320 --> 00:28:20,280 Speaker 1: And there was no controversy here. And I guess that's 471 00:28:20,280 --> 00:28:24,359 Speaker 1: what's surprising me. There were no allegations to misconduct and 472 00:28:24,400 --> 00:28:29,520 Speaker 1: there was no bizarre behavior, and so you know, why 473 00:28:29,640 --> 00:28:31,720 Speaker 1: is it? What is it the interest that we all 474 00:28:31,800 --> 00:28:34,480 Speaker 1: have in the stories and that that's just a curiosity 475 00:28:34,560 --> 00:28:38,040 Speaker 1: to me, and I guess I'm desensitized to it. Because 476 00:28:38,080 --> 00:28:42,520 Speaker 1: I'm working with celebrities in divorce and I know that 477 00:28:42,560 --> 00:28:44,960 Speaker 1: they're just like the rest of us. They have the 478 00:28:45,040 --> 00:28:47,960 Speaker 1: same problems that we all do. But they also didn't 479 00:28:47,960 --> 00:28:50,520 Speaker 1: have the media attention element that none of us face 480 00:28:50,600 --> 00:28:54,080 Speaker 1: if we're going through divorce. Yeah, Brady mentioned that on 481 00:28:54,320 --> 00:28:59,000 Speaker 1: the media attention element on his podcast. You've represented a 482 00:28:59,080 --> 00:29:03,800 Speaker 1: list celebrities. What's easier in a divorce and what's more 483 00:29:03,880 --> 00:29:08,640 Speaker 1: difficult than a divorce with a celebrity involved or two celebrities. Well, 484 00:29:08,640 --> 00:29:11,760 Speaker 1: when you have two celebrity couple you know, are both 485 00:29:11,800 --> 00:29:16,400 Speaker 1: spouses or celebrities, the media attention on it makes it 486 00:29:16,520 --> 00:29:20,040 Speaker 1: very difficult to make a deal. Uh, And that that's 487 00:29:20,080 --> 00:29:24,000 Speaker 1: why most of these folks will do things quietly and 488 00:29:24,040 --> 00:29:26,680 Speaker 1: it's very difficult to keep this a secret. But before 489 00:29:26,800 --> 00:29:29,280 Speaker 1: the breakup is announced, we'll try to work all this 490 00:29:29,320 --> 00:29:32,120 Speaker 1: stuff out so they can have some space or privacy 491 00:29:32,160 --> 00:29:36,320 Speaker 1: to do so. When the story breaks and it's it's 492 00:29:36,400 --> 00:29:40,280 Speaker 1: known that there's a problem in the relationship, then there's 493 00:29:40,440 --> 00:29:44,400 Speaker 1: intense scrutiny on why they're breaking up. And we have 494 00:29:44,600 --> 00:29:49,320 Speaker 1: people coming out of the woodwork and making statements or allegations, 495 00:29:49,440 --> 00:29:53,440 Speaker 1: and that can really disrupt the settlement process and you know, 496 00:29:53,480 --> 00:29:55,680 Speaker 1: slow it down. I mean, we're, like I say, they're 497 00:29:55,760 --> 00:30:00,040 Speaker 1: they're just regular humans here. And so if somebody's coming 498 00:30:00,080 --> 00:30:03,520 Speaker 1: out and there's some cheating allegations that are now become public, 499 00:30:04,000 --> 00:30:08,120 Speaker 1: it is very hurtful and difficult for people to emotionally 500 00:30:08,160 --> 00:30:12,160 Speaker 1: move forward. And so that that's the struggle. I think 501 00:30:12,200 --> 00:30:14,520 Speaker 1: that makes it hard. The fact that they have a 502 00:30:14,520 --> 00:30:16,400 Speaker 1: lot of money. A lot of times people say, oh, 503 00:30:16,400 --> 00:30:18,880 Speaker 1: it must be so hard to settle those cases or 504 00:30:18,920 --> 00:30:20,680 Speaker 1: to go to court one because there's so much money, 505 00:30:20,760 --> 00:30:23,959 Speaker 1: and no, it's actually easier because there's money and they 506 00:30:23,960 --> 00:30:27,440 Speaker 1: can hire professionals and they can afford to, you know, 507 00:30:27,480 --> 00:30:29,840 Speaker 1: go through that process where the rest of us, you know, 508 00:30:29,880 --> 00:30:32,000 Speaker 1: I find it very difficult. So I would just say 509 00:30:32,000 --> 00:30:35,160 Speaker 1: it's the media attention. And then my focus and my 510 00:30:35,320 --> 00:30:38,840 Speaker 1: reminders to clients is that their kids are seeing this, 511 00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:44,480 Speaker 1: and every child is impacted by their parents divorce and 512 00:30:44,880 --> 00:30:47,800 Speaker 1: the immediate family and friends are going to know about it. 513 00:30:47,840 --> 00:30:51,560 Speaker 1: But when you add celebrity parents to the mix, everybody 514 00:30:51,600 --> 00:30:55,200 Speaker 1: knows about that. And I'm trying to put myself in 515 00:30:55,240 --> 00:30:58,920 Speaker 1: that child's position and relate that to the parents and 516 00:30:59,040 --> 00:31:02,000 Speaker 1: let them know like this is out there forever and 517 00:31:02,000 --> 00:31:04,880 Speaker 1: how difficult that's going to be, and keep the focus 518 00:31:04,920 --> 00:31:07,800 Speaker 1: on on their kids. This I think most people who 519 00:31:07,840 --> 00:31:10,479 Speaker 1: look at this divorce or like this is nothing like 520 00:31:10,640 --> 00:31:12,800 Speaker 1: me because of the amounts of money involved in the 521 00:31:12,840 --> 00:31:15,959 Speaker 1: celebrity as we talked about, is there anything that the 522 00:31:16,040 --> 00:31:20,719 Speaker 1: average person can learn from this split up? So we 523 00:31:20,840 --> 00:31:24,920 Speaker 1: all can learn from this and and um with celebrities 524 00:31:24,920 --> 00:31:29,760 Speaker 1: are supposed to be or hopefully role models here and examples. 525 00:31:30,360 --> 00:31:32,840 Speaker 1: We haven't seen a lot of good examples lately, but 526 00:31:32,920 --> 00:31:35,760 Speaker 1: this is one of them where if they're going to 527 00:31:35,800 --> 00:31:37,920 Speaker 1: break up, and I'm sure they tried very hard to 528 00:31:38,000 --> 00:31:40,640 Speaker 1: keep the relationship going, but if they're going to break up, 529 00:31:40,800 --> 00:31:43,680 Speaker 1: to do it in a dignified way, and that there 530 00:31:43,760 --> 00:31:45,800 Speaker 1: was a lot at stake here in terms of money 531 00:31:45,800 --> 00:31:48,880 Speaker 1: and kids. But this couple was able to solve this 532 00:31:48,960 --> 00:31:52,840 Speaker 1: problem quickly and quietly. And you know, why is it 533 00:31:52,880 --> 00:31:55,400 Speaker 1: that people who don't have a lot of money will 534 00:31:55,440 --> 00:31:58,200 Speaker 1: spend pretty much everything they have fighting with each other. 535 00:31:58,400 --> 00:32:00,960 Speaker 1: And that's what I've seen as a divorce lawyer, is 536 00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:04,560 Speaker 1: that these problems are all the same. There's more money 537 00:32:04,560 --> 00:32:06,680 Speaker 1: attached to some of the cases and others. But they're 538 00:32:06,720 --> 00:32:10,240 Speaker 1: all the same in that their spouses or co parents 539 00:32:10,320 --> 00:32:13,200 Speaker 1: that aren't getting along, they're breaking up, they have to 540 00:32:13,240 --> 00:32:16,320 Speaker 1: deal with some financial issues and some kid issues. It's 541 00:32:16,360 --> 00:32:19,840 Speaker 1: not rocket science. And why is it that some will 542 00:32:19,880 --> 00:32:23,360 Speaker 1: settle quickly and others will spend potentially the rest of 543 00:32:23,360 --> 00:32:26,360 Speaker 1: their life fighting with each other and allowing that to 544 00:32:26,400 --> 00:32:30,000 Speaker 1: define themselves. So that the takeaway here is it doesn't 545 00:32:30,000 --> 00:32:32,239 Speaker 1: have to be that way. They can do this, and 546 00:32:32,240 --> 00:32:35,160 Speaker 1: of course it takes two people to do that, and 547 00:32:35,240 --> 00:32:38,240 Speaker 1: so I think this is equally reflective and it only 548 00:32:38,280 --> 00:32:42,680 Speaker 1: could have been accomplished by having two decent, reasonable spouses 549 00:32:42,880 --> 00:32:45,920 Speaker 1: that put their kids interests in their own joint interests 550 00:32:45,920 --> 00:32:49,360 Speaker 1: ahead of any selfish interests that they have. Thanks for 551 00:32:49,400 --> 00:32:52,760 Speaker 1: being on the show, Chris. That's divorce attorney Christopher Melcher, 552 00:32:53,280 --> 00:32:55,560 Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. 553 00:32:55,920 --> 00:32:58,240 Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 554 00:32:58,320 --> 00:33:02,600 Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 555 00:33:02,800 --> 00:33:07,800 Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, 556 00:33:08,240 --> 00:33:10,800 Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every 557 00:33:10,880 --> 00:33:14,000 Speaker 1: week night at ten p m. Wall Street time, I'm 558 00:33:14,080 --> 00:33:16,520 Speaker 1: June Grossow and you're listening to Bloomberg